Income Tax : Section 145(3) allows rejection of books if accounts are unreliable or standards are not followed. The key takeaway is that specif...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income unless books of account are formally rejected under s...
Income Tax : Learn about various types of income tax assessments under Sections 143, 144, and 147, their procedures, time limits, and taxpayer ...
Income Tax : Summary of statutory deadlines for issuing income tax notices (Sec 143, 147) and completing assessments, reassessments, and appeal...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : Starting October 1, 2024, Commissioners (Appeals) will gain new powers to set aside and refer best judgment assessments back to As...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack o...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets asid...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that fa...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when sufficient recorded cash receipts exist. Once books sup...
Income Tax : The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that i...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 725 days in filing of an appeal since assessee is an agriculturist and is not aware of the intricacies of the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission not authorized to rectify the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act as power of rectification vested to Settlement Commission only with effect from 01.06.2011.
Where AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) and proceed directly by rejecting the return filed by assessee, the reassessment action would thus be liable to be quashed.
AO noted that the assessee was unable to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, AO applied section 68 and added into total income and applied tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly assessed income was determined at Rs.75,49,764.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of an amount equal to the amount of advance tax unjustified as assessee has explained good and sufficient reason for not paying the amount.
ITAT Ranchi remands MD Yasin Construction Pvt Ltd’s appeal due to CIT(A)’s non-mentioning of reasons for dismissal, directing a de novo review.
Bombay High Court quashes reassessment order against Arihant Developers, confirming their compliance with the Income Declaration Scheme 2016.
ITAT Jaipur held that in case the books of accounts are rejected by applying provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act then assessment must be completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act which is not done by AO in the present case.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
Madras HC rules Settlement Commission orders can’t be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, upholding the principles from Brij Lal case.
